“You can never be too rich or too thin” has been attributed to Wallace Simpson, the colorful Duchess of Windsor who charmed King George to abdicate the throne of England in 1936.[1] However, when it comes to trademarks, a mark that is lacking a bit of heft is not likely to stand.

The global hair coloring product market is projected to grow into a 200 billion-dollar industry by 2025. Coty reported in 2017 that more than half of all women color their hair regularly. For example, these figures have reached 62% in the United States, 67% in the United Kingdom, 69% in Germany, and 88% in Russia. An in-depth data analysis reported by Grand View Research, Inc. attributes this rapid growth to a global increase in the aging population, environmental insults such as air pollution, and new trends in the fashion industry. Alongside the other lucrative sectors in the beauty industry that were discussed in our previous articles (see link https://www.dilworthip.com/patent-beauty-ip-cosmetics, and link https://www.dilworthip.com/patent-beauty-ip-and-hair-care), the hair coloring sector also deserves a great amount of attention, especially in view of advancing technologies and the intellectual property covering it.

On June 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided against the soft drink giant The Coca-Cola Company in their long-standing battle with Royal Crown Cola Company and Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc. These parties had opposed Coca-Cola’s registration of the “Zero” trademark, for various Coca-Cola products. See, cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2375.Opinion.6-20-2018.pdf

“Your hair is your crowning glory” is an often-quoted phrase with biblical roots.1 Perhaps more importantly, one’s hair is a visible barometer of one’s health and age. Hair care products are also big business. The global hair care market reached $85.5 billion in annual sales in 2017. This figure is expected to climb to over $100 billion by 2024. The U.S. hair care market outcompeted the Asia-Pacific market in 2017, now making it the largest market in the world at about $15 billion. This highly lucrative hair care market continues to grow rapidly with advances in nanotechnology and other areas. A sampling of patents from the hair care sector is summarized at the end of this article.

The cosmeceutical industry is ever more competitive and continues to grow with a myriad of new cosmeceutical products entering the market every day. Well-established and new companies are busily adapting to new trends created by people’s changing tastes. The total revenue of the U.S. cosmeceutical industry has only been increasing since 2009, marking $62.46 billion in 2016. While this revenue comes from a number of cosmeceutical product categories, skin care has always been the most profitable category, covering 36% of the global market.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made a technical change to the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book)[1], effective November 21, 2017. The Orange Book will now show patent submission dates where available. A patent submission date is defined as the date on which the FDA receives patent information from the New Drug Application (NDA)[2] holder, often referred to as the innovator. Previously, patent submission dates could only be ascertained by directly contacting the FDA.

On January 4th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated their webpage on subject matter eligibility with two new supplementary documents providing further guidance under 35 U.S.C. §101. The two new documents are useful summaries and references for practitioners and others having an interest in the area. The two documents, which are briefly described below are:

On September 11, 2017, the two parties involved in Naruto v. Slater – publicly known as “the Monkey Selfie” – jointly asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to dismiss their appeal, and nullify the judgment already made by the lower court. This case has been frequently reported and discussed by both the popular press and serious legal sources, because it unearths our fundamental human assumptions that animals lack a level of awareness to take self-portraits of themselves, let alone raises a copyright question.

We are fast approaching the Supreme Court oral arguments in the case of Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy group on Monday, November 27th. We had previously reported on this case in a recent piece, Oil Battles Greene Energy to War over Inter Partes Review in the Supreme Court. A whopping 57 amicus curiae briefs have been filed, underscoring the intense interest in the outcome of this case. The briefs represent a vast array of interested parties, including law professors, legal associations, small businesses, and recognized companies in the fields of medicine, electronics, automobiles, and technology. The key issue of the case is simple – whether the Patent Office’s inter partes review (IPR) process is an unconstitutional denial of the right to a jury trial.

Here is a case on the Supreme Court docket that could become a landmark decision for the patent community. Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group is the first time the Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR). Over thirty amicus curiae briefs have been filed in this high-profile case that could greatly impact patent infringement and litigation practices. The Court granted a writ of certiorari[1] to Oil States on June 12, 2017, and has set a date for argument next month on November 27. As we look forward to the decision, we review here the critical details of the case.